PDA

View Full Version : New World Order 1 Bank


STYLE
09-18-2008, 08:48 PM
Yahoo finance news link
(http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/62699/New-World-Order-Likely-Morgan-Merger-Leaves-Goldman-Last-Man-Standing;_ylt=AqW0gH16EV.Q3Q3gO4Bauy9l7ot4?tickers =MS,GS,WB,BAC,XLF,AIG&comment_start=21#comments)



damn.

Olive Oil Goombah
09-18-2008, 08:55 PM
And so it begins.....

HANZO
09-18-2008, 09:08 PM
damn, Goldman will go to very soon.

diggy
09-18-2008, 10:13 PM
YA, I always thought something was suspicious about the whole thing. Even russian and asian finacial institutions are effected. It was planned.

I heard U.S. congress was "outraged" last night that the feds (or whoever) bailed out AIG. Other bail-outs are expected. I think something major will result out of it - maybe another war.


One thing these fuckin reporters are not saying is WHY is this all happening!???!! The most crucial question in my opinion.

The FEDS will gobble up all the banks for total control and put their illuminated ones in place as overseers.

Grab your vaseline.

SaqurakiHanamichi
09-18-2008, 10:15 PM
http://www.szinhaz.hu/data/cikk/3/20206/8.jpg

Huggasaurus Sex
09-18-2008, 11:25 PM
this is exactly why i stopped posting in KTL, but for old times sake i guess...

the writer who made that comment did not mean it in the KTLien sense of the planet being purposefully transformed into a 1 government, 1 bank global institution.

in fact he even says, "going forward Wall Street is going to be leaner, more regulated and more transparent." that means less off-balance sheet shenanigans that defraud not only the investing community but the general public as well.

YA, I always thought something was suspicious about the whole thing. Even russian and asian finacial institutions are effected. It was planned.

I heard U.S. congress was "outraged" last night that the feds (or whoever) bailed out AIG. Other bail-outs are expected. I think something major will result out of it - maybe another war.


One thing these fuckin reporters are not saying is WHY is this all happening!???!! The most crucial question in my opinion.

The FEDS will gobble up all the banks for total control and put their illuminated ones in place as overseers.

Grab your vaseline.

1. if by "it" you mean the current bank crisis, then it was no more planned than your neighborhood gangs planned to have a shootout at a club.
2. the only war being fought over this is between potential buyers for these troubled but still valuable banks.
3. why is this happening? because the old paradigm of loose money (low interest rates) led to a slew of ever more risky undertakings by banks, including investing heavily in the real estate boom (made possible by "creative" financial instruments, government sponsorship and lax regulation) which followed the bursting of the tech bubble at the beginning of the millennium. that boom eventually turned to bust and in time banks were forced to realize these losses by either selling these assets at distressed prices, raising new capital, and/or selling their entire businesses. and for the past year banks haven't really wanted to lend money -- to businesses, consumers, or even other banks -- because they don't know who they can trust and this exacerbates the problem.

so to summarize: this happened because pervasive greed rules the private sector and gross incompetence rules the public sector and there are no other sectors we can entrust all this to.

firewood_for_hell
09-18-2008, 11:47 PM
cqi5F5MqqTQ&feature=related

Longbongcilvaringz
09-19-2008, 12:52 AM
enquiry into short selling.

I think a lot of people don't realise that a lot of the people working in the industry really don't have terrific knowledge of what they're doing.

The balance of a free market and regulation in the US always confused me.

Obviously my knowledge of economics is poor, but it's always a thin line between protection and control and stuff.

Either the government lets the market take its course, or regulates more stringently i guess.

STYLE
09-19-2008, 06:04 AM
i see it like this. we are on the edge of a cashless credit based economy.
we have been playing a credit shell game for decades. somebody decided to call the bluff.

do you seriously think these people are broke?

its like when you win 85% of a guys money in a dice game and decide to quit playing instead of moving the money back and forth for a while.


the consolidation of these banks leaving one or two left standing, heavily regulated by the gov, does not sound like an attractive situation to me.

right now i'm for keeping the gov further from my money.

considering how the laws like HR 1955 (2007), can label you a terrorist for your belief system.


This Act may be cited as the `Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007'.SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.
(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/newurl?type=titlesect&title=6&section=361) et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`For purposes of this subtitle:
`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

idk maybe i'm wrong. but i thought that the founding fathers were rebels and the Declaration of Independance said:

all men...(are) endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....

whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...



and then they decided to start a rebellion against their country for these reasons:


He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

Huggasaurus Sex
09-19-2008, 06:45 AM
i'm going to ignore the second half of your post since it has absolutely nothing to do with the current round of bank consolidation.

actually after rereading the first half i have to admit i have no clue what you're even talking about. lehman brothers, the corporate entity, is broke. it filed for chapter 11. but it lost playing the game of corporate and international finance, not c-lo.

so while the article is saying there may be only 1 more independent investment bank left standing, the marketplace hasn't turned into a monopoly. merrill lynch is now a division of bank of america and bear stearns is now a division of jp morgan. they didn't just disappear.

actually, government regulations are what prevent monopolies from forming. and had there been heavier regulations regarding derivatives and lending practices then it would never have gotten this bad in the first place.

and lastly, the way you keep the government from your money is by voting for people who will lower your taxes. these bailouts will eventually have to be paid for by taxpayers but doing nothing would set into motion a more damaging crisis with even more sever repercussions than what we're currently going through, and could very well end up costing you more. so government intervention and consolidation is the only sensible choice at this point.

TSA
09-19-2008, 12:00 PM
i see it like this. we are on the edge of a cashless credit based economy.
we have been playing a credit shell game for decades. somebody decided to call the bluff.

do you seriously think these people are broke?

its like when you win 85% of a guys money in a dice game and decide to quit playing instead of moving the money back and forth for a while.


the consolidation of these banks leaving one or two left standing, heavily regulated by the gov, does not sound like an attractive situation to me.

right now i'm for keeping the gov further from my money.

considering how the laws like HR 1955 (2007), can label you a terrorist for your belief system.



idk maybe i'm wrong. but i thought that the founding fathers were rebels and the Declaration of Independance said:



and then they decided to start a rebellion against their country for these reasons:
you gonna hurry up on the skampoe diss or what?
im not reading any of these cause it said 'new world order', and implication that there's an evil bald man in a cave trying to 'rool da wehld'. A doofusy implication.

but if this is about the current economic problem being planned then dicks should be assigned and ate in this thread.

It's an economy, shit happens by human error and the natural wave like nature of economics. You guys are gonna have to stop thinking 1 nigga planned all of history and got every rich person and media figure to cooperate before during and after his and his homies lifetimes in every country on earth.


its not a realistic way of life.

but hopefully im wrong and this thread isn't about shameless KTLary

Longbongcilvaringz
09-20-2008, 01:04 AM
i'm going to ignore the second half of your post since it has absolutely nothing to do with the current round of bank consolidation.

actually after rereading the first half i have to admit i have no clue what you're even talking about. lehman brothers, the corporate entity, is broke. it filed for chapter 11. but it lost playing the game of corporate and international finance, not c-lo.

so while the article is saying there may be only 1 more independent investment bank left standing, the marketplace hasn't turned into a monopoly. merrill lynch is now a division of bank of america and bear stearns is now a division of jp morgan. they didn't just disappear.

actually, government regulations are what prevent monopolies from forming. and had there been heavier regulations regarding derivatives and lending practices then it would never have gotten this bad in the first place.

and lastly, the way you keep the government from your money is by voting for people who will lower your taxes. these bailouts will eventually have to be paid for by taxpayers but doing nothing would set into motion a more damaging crisis with even more severe repercussions than what we're currently going through, and could very well end up costing you more. so government intervention and consolidation is the only sensible choice at this point.

haha

TSA
09-20-2008, 01:17 AM
and pat, the american relation of regulation and unregulatorialisticlitoralism is following the theory of John Maynard Keyes. His idea is basically the free market does correct itself and all that shit, but since it's hard to deal with the growing pains government needs to spend more when things are bad and less when things are good.


also there's the whole deficit spending thing, which is basically in times of a bad economy borrow to feul the increased government spending and when the economy is good pay it off. government as a giant credit card.

it help in the depression and has been the math ever since cause before that it was all "hey man, leave dem businesses alone man, muhfukin adam smiff nigga" and now its "hey uh, can i get a dollar?" when needed so that it wont be "ain't nigga, gimme yo money, muh fuckin karl marxx nigga"

only with the word nigga used less.

Longbongcilvaringz
09-20-2008, 01:21 AM
I understand The Free Market Economy.

Ive studied Keynes unfortunately.

I meant, i don't understand the aversion to regulation in the US.

You do not have a Free Market, yet there is always the hesitance and distrust of government involvement in the market.

Always, no matter if this involvement is beneficial or not.

I guess it's a 100 year old hang over.

Longbongcilvaringz
09-20-2008, 01:22 AM
Basically, i don't get the psyche.

The same goes with the American psyche in relation to income taxation.

I just don't get it really. (apart from understanding that people hate parting with money)

TSA
09-20-2008, 01:28 AM
oh. Americans don't believe government is the answer, its a huge political turn off.
the country is more "if i can do it he can too" and "get the fuck outta my business"
then most other places in the west.

it kinda roots in the American revolution, which is a push away from big government really. The reason people are allowed to have guns, and land is cause it counters government power, and they cling to shit like that cause they don't want the gov involved in too much.

but when shit hits the fan they come running to the gov, like a slut atheist heroine abortion doctor that gets kidnapped and all of a sudden starts praying to survive.

we dont have a 'free market' cause it fucked us over, but few places do, hong kong is one that has a free market, almost everywhere else doesn't.

the whole thing is also a mix of switching from dem. the republican administrations and the legacies they leave in the name on their ideology.

but yeah, americans hate the government, taxes, being told what to do, and government helping people, but when shit gets real the crawl back to their mommies

Longbongcilvaringz
09-20-2008, 01:32 AM
The impracticalness is blatant though.

As i said, 100+ year hangover.

TSA
09-20-2008, 01:33 AM
and the income tax thing. You have to remember america was founded so that a bunch of pilgrims wouldn't have to pay taxes.

the first government we had made it hard to collect taxes and therefore failed for that reason.
then the second and final one collected taxes but it pissed everyone off cause it was like their fight was in vein. When ppl come to america they're mainly trying to cut out their own destiny, and they dont need an asshole government taking some of it.

it's the american way.

roughing it and getting caked up by your own merit in a place where you have a fair shot (or so it's believed), and the government have nothing to do with all that.

like in france the gov takes huge taxes but pays for everything, americans would NEVER except that.
EVER.

even tho the french have more money left over, america is more individualistic and therefore your earnings are yours and not a part of a giant economic blanket scheme for people that have a 'fair shot' to do what you've done cause you didn't need the gov and neither do they.

this is how the majority of ppl think.

Longbongcilvaringz
09-20-2008, 01:37 AM
Yes.

Over here, it's like half and half.

TSA
09-20-2008, 01:55 AM
i think it really has to do with the history of a country, that plays an unbreakable role


france has always been very centrist, and it's people a bit more liberal then the average, communism would make sense in france, and since it has such an ugly over tone now socialism is working there cause it's the culture

places like america and australia were founded for the purpose of making money, people etched out their own land, did what they wanted with it, got guns for various reasons (they have have property to protect and therefore it makes sense to have guns to do so, weapons are a tool of the propertied, thats why in the dark ages only the rich could hold weapons cause poor people have no 'use' for it since they're not propertied but rather property. This is also why it makes sense for men to have weapons and not women, women aren't the 'owner class'.)

therefore when you etch out land and got weapons your more of your own little nation which means you have freedom and therefore can flex, time to have sex, anytime you want.

where as those without land property or weapons are forced to be the property of someone else to survive (workers, only in a modern industrial system, the guns don't play a role in a factor)

since places like australia created more propertied people then places like scandanavia and france, it makes more sense for them to want to preserve that individual freedom that owning their own reasources gave them cause they were now propertied and wanted to be more propertied cause that's the natural trend (ppl want gains).

America is moreso like that then Australia cause the whole fight for independance, then isolation for the rest of the world after it. This paranoia and greater sense of ownership of property then most western countries makes america unusally anti government and individualistic.

australia was kindly handed independance and even still acknowledges the queen of england as important, therefore their sense of austrialia being 'theirs' is less then americas sense of america being 'theirs' and both more then frances sense of france being 'theirs'

it all plays into relationship with property, your gonna limit what your kids can do more then other ppls kids and protect them more, even if a super nanny thats 100x a better parent then you offers to take them and raise them until they're 18, your gonna resist. It's practical the nanny have them but you dont wanna let go cause you have a great sense of ownership over the kid

but if someone elses kid is a fuck up and gets taken away it makes sense and it's for 'the better' of the kid and society.


it's the same type of mentality

Longbongcilvaringz
09-20-2008, 01:58 AM
haha, yeah i know what you mean.

KERZO
09-20-2008, 03:48 AM
I think because america is so large, thats why people can't keep a grip on it economically and socially. America's history is tattered with mergers and dissections of various public methods, ideology's and arrogance.

It's just something that will happen over there pretty much for the forseeable future. Other smaller countries in the EU and south-east have more control because they are far more smaller. although we all dont get on on many levels (class is still a big divide for instance), the mass mind-thought is still for decent social public interest on the whole which overshadows the underlying ballbags and decrepits of our place.

America is like a fat kid, or skampoe if you will. The similarities between them are uncanny. underlying vented frustration. sense of social misjustice, blatant vulgar attitude....skampoes sonning on here is comparable to the current affairs with the housing market which is why it leads me to the conclusion that your country is fucked,haha

notice how skampoe doesnt even post in here.he seems to shut the fuck up whenever an decent intellectual conversation is thrown in.

so skampoe...whats your view on the current matter? :lmao: